The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Gentlemen... the Bruce Swedien signature microphone Condenser Microphones
Old 27th November 2009
  #61
Lives for gear
 
memphisindie's Avatar
 

Thanks for the free loops for my big hit!!
ha ha, I'll be nicking that tambourine track.

What is the signal chain/sample rate on these?
Please include any special clocking info.
I love the gtr track, stealing that tambourine (just kiddin, ..... maybe), drums are great too.

I like it, has a sort of KM type sound (to me) but smoother and better, the balance is awestriking. That's right, I said it, awestriking, and it'll be a real word in about three years.heh
Old 27th November 2009
  #62
Lives for gear
 
Joram's Avatar
 

Downloaded the wavs...Exquisite recordings, Martin, and great microphones indeed.
Old 27th November 2009
  #63
Lives for gear
 
bigbone's Avatar
 

Martin

Thank's again, that sound awsome ........... by the way who play drums, great feel and tone
Old 27th November 2009
  #64
Lives for gear
 
gainreduction's Avatar
 

I´ll chime in with a little info.

The clips are recorded @ 44,1 kHz/24 bit to PTHD.

Signal chains:

Ac guit: Swedien mic - NPNG preamp - digi192
Drums: Swedien mics- Cranesong Flamingo preamps - digi192
Percussion: same as drums

The drums and percussion are played by swedish drummer extraordinaire Christer Jansson, with a credit list way too long to list here. Roxette etc...

The guitar is played by swedish guitar player Esbjörn Öhrwall, a fantastic musician aswell. He plays on many big hits as he was frequently employed by Max Martin & co in the glory days of Cheiron studios.

As Martin mentioned the clips line up so just import them to your DAW and fool around with them. Hopefully we´ll have some bass and vocals soon too.
Old 27th November 2009
  #65
Lives for gear
 
andyspiller's Avatar
 

Hi Martin

I've spent the last couple of weeks listening to the demos on your site and also (today) these clips you have posted for us, and I have to say that I have never had the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end at a stereo Guitar recording before. Amazing stuff. Now must work out if I can legally sell wife and small child for a pair of Vikings and a Panphonic.

Thank you

Best regards
Old 28th November 2009
  #66
Lives for gear
 
memphisindie's Avatar
 

Sell the car and the dog, and the lawnmower, you can get away with that, the wife will hit you and the kid will get your shins.
Old 28th November 2009
  #67
Gear Maniac
 

First up - I really am digging the sound of this microphone. Can't wait to hear one down is australia sometime...

There have been some other interesting comments / conversations in this thread... this in particular pricked up my ears...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomer1 View Post
IMO with today's modern topologies and IC design its easyer to make/design a very clean "distortion-less" high spec,low noise microphone then a colored one with tons of mojo.
On the other hand with tube/transformer design its almost "instant" color most of the time. Making it clean is the hard part (see how much manufacturers and designers strugled with this issue back in thos years)
I think a lot of the time people (including sound engineers / producers / composers) get sucked in by the use of many words in describing the sound of particular gear and their topologies...

Ok, perhaps not sucked in, but bear with me.

I find it really interesting to see the words "warm," mojo, etc used constantly in marketing (and in shootouts / reviews) of tube based gear. I am by no means a gear designer, but from my study and understanding, and years of use of the gear, I'd say that tube circuits are first and foremost a CLEAN method of gaining a signal. A very clean way of getting gain.

Of course, how they are used in a circuit can greatly effect the final sound (I see / hear a lot of modern gear and their use of tubes) which deliberately increases distortion levels... I really feel that sometimes people hear that distortion (which can sound cool, other times, NOT so...) and they think its kinda warm, and that justifies their purchase of the latest cool tube (should I call it toob) gear.

I guess what this little rant is trying to communicate is sometimes we need to listen to gear without perhaps getting too far into the circuit topology - really listen, see if we like it...and then let our gearlust instincts kick in an postulate and hypothesize over why something sounds the way it does.

Don't get me wrong. I love some of the equipment in my studio with tubes (and toobs) in it... and transformers (can be yum, can be scum...).

But just because a circuit is designed today using modern ideas about layout, topology, component use etc, doesn't mean that it cannot have THE sound that you're after. Full of mojo (or not), Warm (or not) etc. Some modern designers love to use transformers, others don't (and trust me, some of those cuircuits don't need them - and they do fall into the YUMMY category.)

Anyway. I'm going back to my studio to check on my tech... a 1970's console full of transformers arrived via crane to my studio last night, and I'm keen to check on his pre-commissioning progress....

This is not meant to be an attack... more just an observation...

Cheers!
Old 28th November 2009
  #68
Lives for gear
 
De chromium cob's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by gainreduction View Post
It should be somewhere in the $4700 / €3200 region, give or take a little.
Wow- that is what I'd call really going for it money wise. There are just many other mics that I think sound better for less money and are a better investment in the long run....sorry, just my opinion, dont mean to interrupt the love fest (well, I guess I do because I dont really agree with you all based on the posted clips).
Old 28th November 2009
  #69
Lives for gear
 
dpianomn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Kantola View Post
http://www.nu47.com/samples/swe1drums.wav
http://www.nu47.com/samples/swe1tamb.wav
http://www.nu47.com/samples/swe1shaker.wav
http://www.nu47.com/samples/swe1acgtr.wav

Drums were recorded with only an OH pair + another Swedien on the kick. As before, no EQ or processing applied. These 1 min files line up and play together.

Martin
Those acoustic guitars sound RIDICULOUS.heh
Old 28th November 2009
  #70
Lives for gear
 
memphisindie's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by colony nofi View Post
First up - I really am digging the sound of this microphone. Can't wait to hear one down is australia sometime... I'd say that tube circuits are first and foremost a CLEAN method of gaining a signal. A very clean way of getting gain.
Don't get me wrong. I love some of the equipment in my studio with tubes (and toobs) in it... and transformers (can be yum, can be scum...).

Some modern designers love to use transformers, others don't (and trust me, some of those cuircuits don't need them - and they do fall into the YUMMY category.)

This is not meant to be an attack... more just an observation...

Cheers!
This is one of the very best sounding well balanced non-tube transformerless designs I've heard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by De chromium cob View Post
There are just many other mics that I think sound better for less money and are a better investment in the long run....sorry, just my opinion, dont mean to interrupt the love fest (well, I guess I do because I dont really agree with you all based on the posted clips).
Are they in the same catagory?
I haven't heard a more musical and balanced transformerless design anywhere else, It has many uses, and due to the balance, I suspect it could crossover to new uses I wouldn't have picked a transformerless mic for previously. Maybe I need to get out more. (definitely do).
If I had $4700 to spend on gear today, I'd pick on straight up straight away.
I wonder how a Bubinga body would sound. Maybe a Koa.
Old 28th November 2009
  #71
Lives for gear
 
De chromium cob's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by memphisindie View Post
This is one of the very best sounding well balanced non-tube transformerless designs I've heard.

Are they in the same catagory?
I haven't heard a more musical and balanced transformerless design anywhere else, It has many uses, and due to the balance, I suspect it could crossover to new uses I wouldn't have picked a transformerless mic for previously. Maybe I need to get out more. (definitely do).
If I had $4700 to spend on gear today, I'd pick on straight up straight away.
I wonder how a Bubinga body would sound. Maybe a Koa.
Well, my point is I dont really care for transformerless designs. For instance, I dont really care for the transformerless Neumanns either... A good example would be that I love KM84s but KM 184s leave me a little flat. The clips sound good, but (to me anyway) dont have that certain mojo I like to hear that in my experience comes from transformers and sometimes tubes.
So if I had almost 5 large to spend on a mic, it wouldn't be this one (no matter what famous engineer attached his name to it).
Old 28th November 2009
  #72
Lives for gear
 
DONNX's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by De chromium cob View Post
Well, my point is I dont really care for transformerless designs. For instance, I dont really care for the transformerless Neumanns either... A good example would be that I love KM84s but KM 184s leave me a little flat.

+2 thumbsup Transformers and tubes. Transformerless, no thank you...
Old 28th November 2009
  #73
Lives for gear
 
gainreduction's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by De chromium cob View Post
Wow- that is what I'd call really going for it money wise.
It´s more than a U87, less than a Brauner VM-1 and a lot less than most Telefunken USA offerings. That puts it somewhere in the middle of the high end microphone market.

"Economy of scale" does not apply to this product as it is handmade by a one-man company. Boutique audio does not come cheap, never has.
Old 28th November 2009
  #74
Lives for gear
 
De chromium cob's Avatar
 

You're comparing it to mic designs that include transformers and tubes, which cost much more to manufacture. Transformerless mics are much less expensive, so I dont see why this mic is almost $5000, other than the fact that Mr. Swediens name is on it. I can't think of a single other transformerless mic that is this expensive...Can you?
Old 28th November 2009
  #75
Lives for gear
 
memphisindie's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by De chromium cob View Post
Well, my point is I dont really care for transformerless designs. For instance, I dont really care for the transformerless Neumanns either... A good example would be that I love KM84s but KM 184s leave me a little flat. The clips sound good, but (to me anyway) dont have that certain mojo I like to hear that in my experience comes from transformers and sometimes tubes.
So if I had almost 5 large to spend on a mic, it wouldn't be this one (no matter what famous engineer attached his name to it).
I hear and understand you. People do have preferences. I like both, I see a use for both topologies, each for it's own purposes, but, this thing is so balanced it could cross over. Normally a transformerless design screams extended bandwidth and clarity, whereas this buggar is nice and warm, silky smooth, musical as all get out, and controlled without losing low end, that's rare in a transformerless to get all that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by De chromium cob View Post
You're comparing it to mic designs that include transformers and tubes, which cost much more to manufacture. Transformerless mics are much less expensive, so I dont see why this mic is almost $5000, other than the fact that Mr. Swediens name is on it. I can't think of a single other transformerless mic that is this expensive...Can you?
Well, tube mics cost more because there's more parts, powersupply, mic, 1 more cable, tube, and sometimes a transformer too, all that can get expensive if you use the good stuff.
Solid state transformer mics are only expensive when they use better parts in them and their design is reeeeeal good, which isn't a problem these days.
A transformerless mic shouldn't be that much cheaper than a solid state transformer mic, like maybe $150 tops. Maybe if they release the schematics to this mic in 90 years they'll be cheaper?heh
Maybe it's going to help the startup of the Bruce Swedien School of Audio Engineering, in which case, sign me up. I'm sure I could learn something.
Old 28th November 2009
  #76
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by De chromium cob View Post
You're comparing it to mic designs that include transformers and tubes, which cost much more to manufacture. Transformerless mics are much less expensive, so I dont see why this mic is almost $5000, other than the fact that Mr. Swediens name is on it. I can't think of a single other transformerless mic that is this expensive...Can you?
A new circuit design that is sonically compelling (transformerless or otherwise) doesn't just fall from the sky. Many years of R&D and listening are invested in this microphone, and bringing these microphones to life requires the hard work of a true craftsman. These are hand made with exquisite detail with a focus on superior sonics, not component costs. As mentioned previously, if a transformer (at any cost) made the microphone sound better, then it would be included.

Obviously this microphone is more expensive than others that are stamped out by the thousands. It is also much cheaper than some other re-imagined classics on the market. There are many who immediately recognize the value in this new design, but it is admittedly not for everyone. Regardless, I would suggest we all ditch the fixation on the implementation and evaluate this and all other microphones with our ears.

Anybody state-side that wants to arrange a demo, feel free to contact me via email or PM.
Old 28th November 2009
  #77
Lives for gear
 
De chromium cob's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark714 View Post
I would suggest we all ditch the fixation on the implementation and evaluate this and all other microphones with our ears.
I totally agree and stand by my opinion. Best of luck to you.
Old 29th November 2009
  #78
Lives for gear
 
Martin Kantola's Avatar
 

Thanks everyone for sharing your observations and thoughts. Have to say it's absolutely fascinating to read how much of my original design goals you guys can actually hear in a few audio clips!

As for the transformerless discussion, a couple of things to consider. A tube really needs a transformer because of its high output impedance and voltage, so that combo works great in a mic. But the situation is somewhat different with a FET. A transformer in the signal chain is also mostly percieved as sonically pleasing, but there are not only benefits. Some loss of detail is to be expected even with the best transformers. On the other hand, a transformerless design can really sound bloodless and thin, as been noted. The circuitry developed for this microphone is unique because my ears told me something different was needed.

Martin
Old 29th November 2009
  #79
Lives for gear
 
Silvertone's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Kantola View Post
Thanks everyone for sharing your observations and thoughts. Have to say it's absolutely fascinating to read how much of my original design goals you guys can actually hear in a few audio clips!

As for the transformerless discussion, a couple of things to consider. A tube really needs a transformer because of its high output impedance and voltage, so that combo works great in a mic. But the situation is somewhat different with a FET. A transformer in the signal chain is also mostly percieved as sonically pleasing, but there are not only benefits. Some loss of detail is to be expected even with the best transformers. On the other hand, a transformerless design can really sound bloodless and thin, as been noted. The circuitry developed for this microphone is unique because my ears told me something different was needed.

Martin

Martin,

You are truly the expert here and others would benefit to keep more of an "open mind" until they hear your design. I laugh when other speak of the "cost" to manufacture anything... they really have no clue what goes into to running a "real" business.

Good luck, I'm sure this mic sounds fantastic.

best,
Larry
Old 29th November 2009
  #80
Lives for gear
 
bigbone's Avatar
 

Martin

You mic sound amazing and i wish you the best .
Old 29th November 2009
  #81
Lives for gear
 

I think a lot of the complaining is just that people read "NU-47" and what they are hoping for is a cheaper and more available Wagner U-47w type of re-creation rather than something new.

Had you named this "The Swedien" rather than "NU-47" people would come in with a more open mind I think.

(Oh sorry this mic isn't the NU-47, which also had the wood body iirc...back to your bickering )
Old 29th November 2009
  #82
Lives for gear
 
Martin Kantola's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by spicemix View Post
Had you named this "The Swedien" rather than "NU-47" people would come in with a more open mind I think.
To clarify, we are calling this signature microphone the Bruce Swedien No.1

The NU-47 is a tube microphone with an M7 capsule and was only made in limited numbers.

Martin
Old 30th November 2009
  #83
Lives for gear
 
dbjp's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Kantola View Post
Here's a couple of acoustic guitars recorded with the Swedien #1, no processing. We'll try to post some other samples of various instruments later if you're interested.

http://www.nu47.com/samples/swe1-acguit.wav

Martin
Wow, lovely.
Very clear and detailed without being harsh at all. Would be interesting to experiment with different preamps and comps in the chain to see how the perceived character of the mic may change.
Great work!
Old 30th November 2009
  #84
Gear Maniac
 
Djembe's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by u b k View Post
I would take that bet! My position is that it might sound different, but it would not sound sweeter, and I would lay serious money that attempts to sweeten the sound would come at the expense of the detail.

But my point wasn't that stock 12ax7's make the sweetest sounding circuits, my point was that stock 12ax7's can be implemented in a way that is utterly beyond reproach by any measure or standard; the Peach is world class and, imo, in a league occupied by very few other pieces. So when the broad claim is made that new tubes don't cut it and only the rare old gems will do, it seems to fly in the face of my experience.

But I say 'seems to' because I admit to the possibility that microphones are different and have requirements that set them apart from (e.g.) preamps, and that the above claim is therefore true with regards to them. My tech knowledge is still in its infancy compared to the men who can actually design things from the ground up, so I figured I'd ask.

I await the answer!


Gregory Scott - ubk
.

Sorry to chime in a bit late, but just saw this post.
I have done exactly what you suggested, that is, swapped the stock tubes in my Peach M196SE preamp with NOS Telefunken on the input and NOS GE on the output. I did a number of tests and to tell the truth, could hardly hear any difference. (Y cable into both channels) I have left the NOS ones in because when they saturate, it's a slightly more pleasing and warmer sound. With a clean sound, minimal if any difference.
Old 30th November 2009
  #85
Gear Addict
 
andrewenson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark714 View Post
A large part of our plan involves organizing listening sessions over the next few months in the USA. I'm looking to have the initial session in Madison or Milwaukee, WI. In late December I'm looking at booking listening sessions in Nashville, Orlando, and LA and Hawaii in January 2010.

Email : mark(at)nu47.com
AHAHAHA. thats hilarious. i lived in hawaii all my life, went to orlando for a little while. and now i live in LA.
i think its a sign

btw what island in hawaii are you going to? i hope to god not oahu, even though i guess thats probably where :/ *sigh*

they just trashed the superferry going between maui and oahu so i guess any maui slutz are going to be cutting their wrists
Old 30th November 2009
  #86
Gear Maniac
 

Swedmann U77.

It was time to see a new classic.

Thanks Bruce.
Old 30th November 2009
  #87
Lives for gear
 
Outlaw Hans's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael_Joly View Post
I've been doing some comparisons of increasingly hard-to-source (getting almost impossible) New Old Stock ('50s-'60s) GE 5 Star 6072 tubes and brand new, self-selected for low noise, gold pin, Russian-built 12AY7 tubes sold by Electro Harmonix (New Sensor corp) in microphone circuits. I mean I love the old **** - I'm totally into the metaphysical "time capsule" concept of audio (you know, the "vibe" of another time and place sealed in a vacuum tube)

But let me just say that capsule, headbasket design, circuit topology and component types far outweigh any perceived benefit of really expensive NOS tubes - GE, RCA, Mullard or Telefunken. I say let the effete pipe-smoking audiophools have them, lets keep prices real in tube mics, use current production tubes and get on with making some music.
I had an Se Electronics tube mic back in the day. Chinese mid level mic. Changing the tube for a valvo NOS made it a lot darker and thicker. There is a difference.

Nice mic. Too bad it's not priced for the blue collar Rock 'n Roller.
Old 30th November 2009
  #88
Lives for gear
 
De chromium cob's Avatar
 

Hey Larry, You must of missed my first post where I said I based my opinion on the posted clips of the mic....The thing thats laughable is saying I dont have an open mind. BUT- After thinking about it, I did listen to those clips on my media center stereo in the living room, which I dont normally listen to raw, unmastered clips on. So I took the clips into the studio and listened to all of them again.
And while I think they do sound really good, and better than I originally thought, there's still something about the high end that bothers me. Its a certain quality of transformerless mics that just doesn't appeal to me. Its almost like hyper detail...Like instead of looking at a beautiful Jessica Alba, you also saw every pore on her face...Or looking at a pointillism style painting too close.
Its just MY OPINION and you all are free to think differently- its a free country.

PS- I would recommend listening to the acoustic guitar track as two seperate tracks- left and then right, to be able to really judge just the response of the mic in that application.
Old 30th November 2009
  #89
Lives for gear
 
roonsbane's Avatar
I am no expert but suggest a few examples of a few mics where the transformerless design is a much better sound. I also suggest that the examples that do sound better in the transformer version is because of some or many other circuitry or capsule differences that help to make it sound better. The DPA 4006 TL has a warmer bottom and is less gritty on choirs singing in their upper registers compared to it's transformer version. It is just a sweeter sound, and the TL also gives a extra needed octave on the double basses. Also, I just converted my AKG 460's to the Jim Williams transformer version and suddenly this mic has a friggen huge bottom end and seems a bit smoother in the top end as well.

I agree that the older km series mics do generally sound better, though km100 switchable capsule series mics sound beautiful with little effort on most acoustic sources. Also, who can argue that the schoeps are among the very best tools one can use on acoustic sources.

It's the whole circuit!
Cameron
Old 30th November 2009
  #90
Lives for gear
 
memphisindie's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by De chromium cob View Post
Hey Larry, You must of missed my first post where I said I based my opinion on the posted clips of the mic....The thing thats laughable is saying I dont have an open mind. BUT- After thinking about it, I did listen to those clips on my media center stereo in the living room, which I dont normally listen to raw, unmastered clips on. So I took the clips into the studio and listened to all of them again.
And while I think they do sound really good, and better than I originally thought, there's still something about the high end that bothers me. Its a certain quality of transformerless mics that just doesn't appeal to me. Its almost like hyper detail...Like instead of looking at a beautiful Jessica Alba, you also saw every pore on her face...Or looking at a pointillism style painting too close.
Its just MY OPINION and you all are free to think differently- its a free country.

PS- I would recommend listening to the acoustic guitar track as two seperate tracks- left and then right, to be able to really judge just the response of the mic in that application.
I understand what you are saying, and I agree to the extent that if you ONLY used it dry with a mic pre without xformers that can be pushed it would be hyper real, and sometimes that serves us, but, stick it into a good xformer pre and hit it HARD and i bet it sings a beautiful song.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Bruce Swedien / High end
71
Nu-tra / So much gear, so little time
21
MarcusNeeraas / Work In Progress / Advice Requested / Show and Tell / Artist Showcase / Mix-Offs
0

Forum Jump
Forum Jump